American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rohrl said:

Isn't it a fair enough question?

If a meeting is private then what is wrong with trying to discourage eavesdropping? Is it wrong to sweep the area for electronic bugs? How about closing doors and windows, is that wrong? What is so uniquely wrong about using a white noise generator?

Well for starters it isn't the issue I was addressing. But you are free to keep going.

i'll try again.

Your attempt to redirect was fully understood the first time.

There's no attempt to redirect at all. It's a serious question. You brought up the subject of use of a white noise generator to prevent others listening to a private meeting - what's the issue with her doing that?

[scherzkeks]

unrepentant said:

It's perfectly reasonable behavior.

To you perhaps. But not to anyone concerned about a candidate's questionable relationships with corrupt financial institutions.

[Sylvaforever]

scherzkeks said:

unrepentant said:

It's perfectly reasonable behavior.

To you perhaps. But not to anyone concerned about a candidate's questionable relationships with corrupt financial institutions.

Oh that is SO funny.





In fact on re-reading that have half a dozen of these to go as well...

Edited by Sylvaforever on Thursday 25th August 13:58

[rohrl]

Farage has hitched himself to the Trump-train. I'm sure he'll help to reach out to women and ethnic minorities.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37177938

[Halb]

538 are usually very good with this sort of stuff.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-...

[amusingduck]

unrepentant said:

The bottom line is she's not everybody's cup of tea but she's been heavily vetted for decades and has been cleared of doing anything illegal. Trump on the other hand is being sued for fraud by 3500 people in a class action law suit over his fraudulent Ponzi scheme, a suit that may open the floodgates. Given his massive debts and businesses that are reported to be struggling who knows if he'll even be solvent in 4 years.

Speaking of lawsuits, what about the class action lawsuit against the DNC and DWS for rigging the election in HRC's favour?

http://observer.com/2016/08/class-action-lawsuit-a...

HRC, as usual, will not face any consequences. It's unlikely she knew that the DNC was rigging things in her favour.

[scherzkeks]

amusingduck said:

Speaking of lawsuits, what about the class action lawsuit against the DNC and DWS for rigging the election in HRC's favour?

http://observer.com/2016/08/class-action-lawsuit-a...

Thanks for posting. Glad someone is at least attempting to hold these goons accountable.

Will justice be served in modern America? I think I already know the answer!

[unrepentant]

rohrl said:

Farage has hitched himself to the Trump-train. I'm sure he'll help to reach out to women and ethnic minorities.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37177938

They didn't adjust the mic for Farage and he's shorter than Trump so it was in front of his face as he spoke which was funny.

None of the cable channels covered his speech except to say it was odd that he was here. (FOX may have). The comments I read on ttter all made reference to the fact that at least Farage can deliver a coherent speech, unlike Trump.

[Countdown]

scherzkeks said:

You aren't, as it has all been posted before, but there is a nice run-down of the Clinton scandals here. Nothing (IMO) to disprove from Unrep's post, as it consists of opinion and conjecture.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/0...


Of course the above leaves out one of the most massive breachs of trust of all, that being the secret rigging of the primary process and hiring the disgraced ex-DNC chair (thanks Wikileaks).

Transparency and openess. Or perhaps just another hustler like Trumpo? Fire up the white noise machine, and watch for incoming sniper fire!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/7/1512350/-Cl...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 25th August 10:43

Before I read the links can I just check - are these as genuine as your suggestion about the Epi-pen?

[Northbloke]

Halb said:

538 are usually very good with this sort of stuff.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-...

Usually yes, but this campaign they have been as horribly wrong as everybody else (well barring unrep of course ).

The founder Nate Silver has already had to issue a mea culpa on Trump whom he rated a total no hoper for the Republican nomination plus more recently he had Bernie Sanders at over 100/1 for one of the States v Clinton which he duly won.

So past performance is not necessarily a guide to the future here. To my eyes it has much more similarity with the Shy Tories propelling Cameron to victory and the Shy Brexiteers getting us out of the EU. People have had enough of the failed self-serving self-selected elite.

Whether there are enough Shy Trumpers about we will have to wait and see. But if I were a fan of Clinton (who is surely as unlikeable as Ed Milliband)I wouldn't be taking that much comfort in the discredited polls.

[Countdown]

scherzkeks said:

amusingduck said:

Speaking of lawsuits, what about the class action lawsuit against the DNC and DWS for rigging the election in HRC's favour?

http://observer.com/2016/08/class-action-lawsuit-a...

Thanks for posting. Glad someone is at least attempting to hold these goons accountable.

Will justice be served in modern America? I think I already know the answer!

Apologies - another quick question... I like Bernie more than HRC. However my understanding was that he was/is an "Independent". If this is correct why was he standing for the Democratic Party nomination? Was it because he knew that he'd have little or no chance as an Independent and trying to hijack their political machinery (i.e. "doing a Trump")?

If this is correct then why wouldn't the Dems try to stop him?

[Countdown]

Michael Moore on why Trump will win

[amusingduck]

Assange: Wikileaks Will ‘Absolutely’ Release ‘Significant’ Hillary Documents Before Election
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/24/assange-wikileak...

[amusingduck]

Countdown said:

Apologies - another quick question... I like Bernie more than HRC. However my understanding was that he was/is an "Independent". If this is correct why was he standing for the Democratic Party nomination? Was it because he knew that he'd have little or no chance as an Independent and trying to hijack their political machinery (i.e. "doing a Trump")?

If this is correct then why wouldn't the Dems try to stop him?

Well, they did try to stop him didn't they!

The point is that the DNC declare themselves as a neutral body. The leaks proved otherwise. That is why the head (DWS), and a handful of other DNC staffers resigned.

[unrepentant]

scherzkeks said:

Thanks for posting. Glad someone is at least attempting to hold these goons accountable.

Will justice be served in modern America? I think I already know the answer!

The lawsuit is a joke. Sanders and his campaign want no part of it. The suit will get tossed. In any event why shouldn't the DNC work to nominate a candidate who is a member of the party? Sanders was little more than a carpetbagger. He stood as the independent alternative, boasting that he wasn't part of the machine and his donors coughed up for his campaign knowing that.

Speaking of The Bern, two thirds of the staff at his new organization quit yesterday in protest at the appointment of his unpopular former campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, as its head. This organization is set up so that it can take in large donations from anonymous sources, something the old hypocrite Sanders railed against during his campaign! Feel that Bern!

[jjlynn27]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/d...

It's like most threads on PH. 'Says who?'.

[amusingduck]

unrepentant said:

In any event why shouldn't the DNC work to nominate a candidate who is a member of the party? Sanders was little more than a carpetbagger.

DNC Charter - Article 4 - Section 4 said:

Section 4. The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation as
may be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In
the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee,
particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the
Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and
campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the
Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party
Presidential nominating process.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.17.15.pdf

As you were.

Then again, the rules don't apply to HRC. Why should they apply to the DNC?

[scherzkeks]

unrepentant said:

In any event why shouldn't the DNC work to nominate a candidate who is a member of the party?

Ah, yes. Word that statement very carefully.

The head goon did step down to save face though, I'll give her (you) that.

[unrepentant]

jjlynn27 said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/d...

It's like most threads on PH. 'Says who?'.

The candidate is in denial so denial is the party line. Except... Kellyanne when pressed about whether she could still see a path to victory said that she could see a path to 270 ( not very bullish as that's the bare minimum) but that included PA. Trump is losing PA by such a wide margin that it's no longer considered a swing state!

[unrepentant]

scherzkeks said:

unrepentant said:

In any event why shouldn't the DNC work to nominate a candidate who is a member of the party?

Ah, yes. Word that statement very carefully.

The head goon did step down to save face though, I'll give her (you) that.

DWS did her job. She'll be looked after.

A Sanders candidacy would have been as disastrous as a Corbyn leadership has been for Labour.